Why They Get Nothing

Joan Peterson’s shout out in frustration should be exhibit A for why nothing changes after public mass shootings:

The cynical and evil leadership of the NRA suggested that they may be able to support a ban on bump fire stocks. NOT. Not even that very small measure will pass muster with this group of disingenuous group of guys who represent the industry that sells these things.

There’s not even an acknowledgement that perhaps your side has drafted something that’s very broadly worded, and sweeps up far more items than merely bump stocks. Some will no doubt argue the broad language is done out of malice rather than out of ignorance. But whichever way it goes, the language of these bills is unacceptable. Show me some acceptable language, and we can make a deal. But with this? No deal. They honestly can’t help themselves:

So Speaker Ryan and Republicans in control of our country- what say you? Shame on them all. We need much more than a ban on bump fire stocks.

What we need is a comprehensive bill to make America safe again, including a ban on bump fire stocks, a reduction in the number of bullets in an ammunition magazine, a ban on certain types of assault rifles and the accompanying features that can be added to make them more deadly, universal Brady background checks, research into the causes and effects of gun violence, adequate funding for the ATF, stronger straw purchasing and gun trafficking laws, mandatory training before owning or carrying a gun, mandatory secure storage of guns, child access prevention laws, gun violence protection orders, limiting who can carry a loaded weapon around in public, and yes, perhaps even a system of gun registration.

Remember what I predicted in the beginning? A deal will be offered. The deal with be rejected, because whatever X is offered isn’t what the other side really wants. It will force them to show their hand, it will fire our people up and they will get nothing in the end.

After Sandy Hook, gun folks put out an initial offer on universal background checks, that would have provided a technological means for private parties to conduct them. That offer was rejected, and they overreached, got defeated, tried to put together that last-minute awful compromise in the form of Manchin-Toomey, and by that time the issue was so toxic, the only thing that could be agreed on was nothing.

So I predicted the same thing would happen this time. The gun control people were offered bump stocks, because we don’t really care that much about them and we have a stalled agenda we really do care about. But they aren’t interested in bump stocks. They want the whole kit and caboodle, and they can’t get it, they’ll take their ball and go home. This would seem to be exactly what they are doing. They are interested in death of a thousands cuts. What they aren’t interested in is true compromise: we give a little, and they give a little.

I keep seeing: “Bumps stocks aren’t enough!” Well, OK then. You get nothing.

14 thoughts on “Why They Get Nothing”

  1. HappyWarrior6 really called this, and you summed it up as well. They will overreach and get nothing. Plenty of people on our side are ready to compromise on bump stocks. But very few will just let them be or regulated or banned without anything in return.

  2. Oh, I got a story about gun-controllers “compromise”, oh yes.

    I was having an argument with a Canadian about gun-control in 2002, when science-fiction author David Brin interjected with his own grand idea for a final grand “compromise” on gun control.

    Ready? Here it comes…

    We would agree to give up everything, every type of firearm, all to be outlawed, with the exception of bolt action rifles. And in return? An ironclad guarantee that we could always keep our bolt-action rifles!

    Isn’t that sweet? What a deal!

  3. Yep they overreach and get nothing . I am not happy that a person used a bump stock to kill 58 people. Copycats will then try to top that. But the butcher bill will be much higher if they get the idea it is easy to take our guns.
    Give anything and that is what they will do.

    1. Depending on whose numbers you believe guns are used defensively .75-3 million times each year. That’s something like 2000-8000 times per day. I think it’s safe to say there has never been a day when more Americans died from guns then were saved by them.

  4. There’s also this demand of hers

    “”Oh, and I forgot to add the repeal of PLCAA and the Tiarht amendment and bringing law suits against gun manufacturers and sellers.””

    Of course… /immediately/ after writing that she brags about the suit the Brady Center just brought against that stock mfg.

    And, naturally, it ends with “this only happens in the US” which is… expected really.

  5. If you are asked why you want a gun, respond “to protect my daughters against Harvey Weinstein”. Given his size, I suggest a 44M.

  6. “What they aren’t interested in is true compromise: we give a little, and they give a little.”

    Neither am I.

    When those who oppose gun control compromise with those who favor gun control, then those who oppose gun control lose something and those who favor gun control gain something. When that happens over and over and over again, those who oppose gun control lose everything and those who favor gun control win everything. I don’t go down that road because I don’t want to go where that road goes.

    Instead, the approach I take is characterized by a quote that is attributed to Napoleon: “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

  7. As Kim du Toit used to say, we ARE at a compromise position right now. If you want things to change, you better be willing to do some serious trading. If you have a list of demands,you can shove them.

  8. In the article Joan says “What we need is a comprehensive bill to make America safe again”. This seems to indicate that we were more safe before. Safe before all gun control was inacted. Sign me up.

  9. It is really fascinating when gun control proponents reject gun control. They did it for Coburn’s UBC bill, and they did it for the terrorist watch list compromise bill because it had a 72 hour hold for due process to deny the sale outright. Nobody on the left calls them out on this. Nobody. Where is Joan Peterson?

    I can only see two reasons for this: One is because they believe they can hold out, wait for the next mass shooting, and get more public support for what they really want. This is pretty sick, because if these people truly believe that gun control saves lives, then they are willing to let people die now so that they can do something like criminalize private transfers later. Disturbing. Second is because politics is more important than virtues (which seems to be the theme of American life today). If they agreed to Coburn’s UBC bill, then background checks as an issue are no longer on the table. They can’t beat that drum anymore to make their political opponents seem evil to their base. Better to quietly reject a compromise bill and then flood social media with memes about NRA blood money winning again. And the media is complicit in letting that rejection be quiet, otherwise they couldn’t get away with it. It is all part and parcel in today’s politics where strategist realized that the pool of people on your side who didn’t vote is greater than the pool of undecided voters. So rather than appeal to the center, it makes more sense to rile up your base by stirring up hate. God forbid you settle on an issue and lose some of that power.

Comments are closed.